Download Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges and

Biol Invasions
DOI 10.1007/s10530-016-1302-3
PERSPECTIVES AND PARADIGMS
Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges
and guidelines
Jasmin G. Packer . Laura A. Meyerson . David M. Richardson . Giuseppe Brundu .
Warwick J. Allen . Ganesh P. Bhattarai . Hans Brix . Susan Canavan . Stefano Castiglione .
Angela Cicatelli . Jan Čuda . James T. Cronin . Franziska Eller . Francesco Guarino .
Wei-Hua Guo . Wen-Yong Guo . Xiao Guo . José L. Hierro . Carla Lambertini . Jian Liu .
Vanessa Lozano . Thomas J. Mozdzer . Hana Skálová . Diego Villarreal . Ren-Qing Wang .
Petr Pyšek
Received: 13 July 2016 / Accepted: 26 October 2016
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
Abstract Much has been done to address the
challenges of biological invasions, but fundamental
questions (e.g., which species invade? Which habitats
are invaded? How can invasions be effectively managed?) still need to be answered before the spread and
impact of alien taxa can be effectively managed.
Questions on the role of biogeography (e.g., how does
biogeography influence ecosystem susceptibility,
Electronic supplementary material The online version of
this article (doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1302-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
resistance and resilience against invasion?) have the
greatest potential to address this goal by increasing our
capacity to understand and accurately predict invasions at local, continental and global scales. This paper
proposes a framework for the development of ‘Global
Networks for Invasion Science’ to help generate
approaches to address these critical and fundamentally
biogeographic questions. We define global networks
on the basis of their focus on research questions at the
global scale, collection of primary data, use of
standardized protocols and metrics, and commitment
to long-term global data. Global networks are critical
for the future of invasion science because of their
J. G. Packer (&)
Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Brundu V. Lozano
Department of Agriculture, University of Sassari, Viale
Italia 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy
J. G. Packer
School of Biological Sciences, The University of
Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
W. J. Allen J. T. Cronin
Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
J. G. Packer
Department of Environmental Systems Science, Institute
of Integrative Biology, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH), 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
G. P. Bhattarai
Indian River Research and Education Center, University
of Florida, Fort Pierce, FL 34945, USA
L. A. Meyerson
Department of Natural Resources Science, The University
of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA
D. M. Richardson S. Canavan
Department of Botany and Zoology, Centre for Invasion
Biology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland 7602, South
Africa
H. Brix F. Eller C. Lambertini
Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University,
8000 Århus C, Denmark
S. Canavan
Invasive Species Programme, South African National
Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch Research Centre,
Private Bag X7, Claremont 7735, South Africa
123
J. G. Packer et al.
potential to extend beyond the capacity of individual
partners to identify global priorities for research
agendas and coordinate data collection over space
and time, assess risks and emerging trends, understand
the complex influences of biogeography on mechanisms of invasion, predict the future of invasion
dynamics, and use these new insights to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of evidence-based management techniques. While the pace and scale of
global change continues to escalate, strategic and
collaborative global networks offer a powerful
approach to inform responses to the threats posed by
biological invasions.
Keywords Biogeographic Biological invasions Collaboration Global change Global research
network Multitrophic Transdisciplinary
Introduction
Considerable progress has been made on multiple
fronts in understanding the many dimensions of
invasion science (as defined by Richardson 2011).
Despite such advances, the three fundamental questions that have driven most research on biological
invasions since the 1980s have not been fully
answered (Drake et al. 1989; Mooney et al. 2005):
Which species invade? Which habitats are invaded?
How can invasions be effectively managed? Plant
S. Castiglione A. Cicatelli F. Guarino
Department of Chemistry and Biology ‘‘A. Zambelli’’,
University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy
J. Čuda W.-Y. Guo H. Skálová P. Pyšek
Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences,
Zámek 1, 252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic
J. Čuda P. Pyšek
Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles
University, Viničná 7, 128 44 Prague 2, Czech Republic
W.-H. Guo X. Guo R.-Q. Wang
Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Life
Sciences, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, People’s
Republic of China
W.-H. Guo X. Guo R.-Q. Wang
Shandong Provincial Engineering and Technology
Research Center for Vegetation Ecology, Shandong
University, Jinan 250100, People’s Republic of China
123
invasions have been more intensively studied than any
other major group of alien organisms (Pyšek et al.
2006, 2008) and have contributed most to our
theoretical understanding of organism-focused (what
determines invasiveness of particular taxa?) and
ecosystem-centered (what makes a community,
ecosystem or region susceptible to invasion?) questions in invasion science. Observations of invasions
and associated biotic and abiotic processes have
historically been important in informing invasion
science (e.g., Richardson et al. 2004). More recently,
manipulative experiments (garden and field-based),
predictive modeling, and conceptual/theoretical
approaches have helped to integrate our understanding
of species invasiveness with that of community
invasibility (Catford et al. 2009). Research areas
contributing substantially to invasion science include
the characteristics that predispose taxa to become
invasive (van Kleunen et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2014;
Suda et al. 2015) and interactions between biological
invasions and environmental change at multiple scales
(Walther et al. 2007; Pyšek et al. 2010; Kueffer et al.
2013). There is increasing realization that solutions to
problems associated with invasions must be sought by
placing the phenomenon firmly within the domain of
social-ecological systems (Meyerson and Mooney
2007; Hui and Richardson 2017). Despite the progress,
many fundamental questions in invasion science
remain unresolved. Answers to the four research
questions below are among those that hold the greatest
potential to deepen our understanding of biological
X. Guo
College of Landscape Architecture and Forestry, Qingdao
Agricultural University, Qingdao 266109, People’s
Republic of China
J. L. Hierro
Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales
(CONICET-UNLPam), 6300 Santa Rosa, Argentina
J. L. Hierro D. Villarreal
Universidad Nacional de La Pampa, Ave Uruguay 151,
RA-6300 Santa Rosa, Argentina
J. Liu
Institute of Environmental Research, Shandong
University, Jinan 250100, People’s Republic of China
T. J. Mozdzer
Department of Biology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr,
PA 19010, USA
Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges and guidelines
invasions and improve our capacity to manage invasion dynamics (see also Richardson 2011):
1.
2.
3.
4.
How does biogeography influence ecosystem
susceptibility, resistance and resilience against
invasion?
How does biogeography influence the ecological
(e.g., enemy release and invasional meltdown)
and socio-economic (e.g., dynamic travel and
trade routes) mechanisms and impacts of biological invasions?
Are ‘space for time’ substitutions effective to
predict the likelihood of an invasion, and the
vulnerability of ecosystems to potential impacts,
as the global environment continues to change?
What is the role of adaptation and evolution in
determining invasion success, specifically:
a.
b.
evolutionary history within the native range
prior to invasion?
adaptation to environments, and evolution, in
the invaded range?
To facilitate progress on these global priorities for
invasion science, researchers must consider which
critical questions can realistically be answered
(Strayer 2012; Kueffer et al. 2013) and then strategically collect and analyze data to address them. The
vast spatial scale and breadth of experience required to
address these big-picture questions presents a logistical challenge for research groups working in isolation.
In this paper we focus on plant invasions to explore the
benefits and challenges of addressing these otherwise
intractable questions with global-scale research via
transdisciplinary networks (sensu Wickson et al. 2006;
see also Meyerson and Mooney 2007; Fraser et al.
2013) and provide a road map to encourage new, and
more effective, international collaborations.
Global networks for invasion science:
a delimitation
We define ‘Global Networks for Invasion Science’
through their primary purpose of collecting new
primary data to answer specific questions about
patterns, mechanisms and impacts of biological invasions at the global scale (e.g., the effect of sea level rise
on the distribution of cosmopolitan littoral taxa) or
finer resolutions that are best addressed by multiple
regions contributing to a global synthesis (e.g., the
effects of rising temperatures on the invasion of
grasslands in arid biomes). Although most existing large-scale collaborations focus on a particular
taxon (e.g., Ambrosia artemisiifolia, www.ragweed.
eu) or specific invasion issues (e.g., effectiveness of
sentinel plants as an early warning system; Roques
et al. 2015), networks could also use model systems
(e.g. Phragmites australis; Meyerson et al. 2016b) to
accelerate deeper understanding of the patterns (e.g.,
changing spatial distributions; Dietz et al. 2006) and
processes (e.g., the mechanisms by which invasive
plants disrupt pollination networks; LopezaraizaMikel et al. 2007) of invasion dynamics.
To qualify as ‘global’, we suggest that networks
cover gradients (e.g., latitudinal and longitudinal, and
from natural to human-dominated ecosystem) with
nodes (network partners and/or sites) spanning biogeographic zones over both hemispheres and including at least three continents. This suggestion is
motivated by the need for a practical operational
definition of networks for international—and potentially transdisciplinary—research teams that aim to
study invasion dynamics at a representative set of
locations and regions (Kueffer et al. 2013). Transdisciplinary refers to the generation of new knowledge
and solutions to real-world problems through shared,
standardized and iterative methodologies drawn from
two or more disciplines (adapted from Wickson et al.
2006). The current distribution of most invasive
organisms, in both their native and introduced ranges,
spans two or more continents but rarely covers the
entire globe (cf. Rejmánek and Richardson 2013).
Limiting the selection of focal taxa to those that have a
large global range would focus research efforts on a
manageable set of cosmopolitan, model systems that
are well-represented spatially and with good coverage
in the literature (Table 1).
The objectives of Global Networks for Invasion
Science can be summarized by four defining characteristics. (1) Global networks address research questions on biological invasions at the global scale (as
defined above) through a biogeographic synthesis of
insights from multiple localities across large regions
(Hierro et al. 2005; Colautti et al. 2014b; Cronin et al.
2015). (2) Primary data on model systems are collected
to address specific global questions, for example
through common gardens, field experiments and/or
field observations. Collaborations that use existing
123
J. G. Packer et al.
Table 1 Examples of species/genera which may make useful model organisms, their native and introduced distributions, and key
characteristics which make them suitable candidate species for global network studies
Model organism
(Family)
Model system category
Distribution
Key characteristics
Acacia spp.
Intensively studied
species
Native: Australia
Multiple invasive and native species
Introduced: Africa,
Asia, EU, New
Zealand, NA, SA
Global distribution
(Fabaceae)
Specialized research
Known invasion history
Habitat generalists
Vegetative reproduction (stem cuttings)
Interspecific hybridization
Major economic and environmental impacts
(displacement of native vegetation, disruption to water
flow leading to streambank erosion and changed
nutrient cycling patterns)
Alternanthera
philoxeroides
Intensively studied
species
Alligator weed
(Amaranthaceae)
Native: SA
Introduced: Asia, EU,
NA, Oceania
Intraspecific genetic and phenotypic variability Global
distribution
Known invasion history
Habitat generalist
Vegetative reproduction (stem cuttings)
Fast growing
Major economic and environmental impacts (deleterious
effects on other plants and animals, water quality,
aesthetics, hydrology; degrades pasture, turf and crop
production in terrestrial ecosystems)
Ambrosia
artemisiifolia
Intensively studied
species
Common
ragweed
Specialized research
Native: NA
Pre-existing research network
Introduced: Africa,
Asia, EU, Oceania,
SA
Global distribution
(Asteraceae)
Arundo donax
Known invasion history
Habitat generalist
Fast growing
Understudied species
Native: Asia
Introduced: Africa,
Asia, EU, NA,
Oceania, SA
Giant reed
(Poaceae)
Major economic, environmental and social impacts
(decreases crop yield, displaces native species,
allergenic pollen)
Global distribution
Known invasion history
Habitat generalist
Vegetative reproduction (rhizomes or plant fragments)
Fast growing
Major economic, environmental and social impacts
(outcompetes native species, alters hydrology and fire
regimes)
Colocasia spp.
Elephant ear/taro
(Araceae)
Understudied species
Genera/families with an
underrepresentation of
invasive species
Native: Asia
Introduced: Africa,
Asia, EU, NA,
Oceania, SA
Multiple invasive and native species
Global distribution
Known invasion history
Habitat generalists
Vegetative reproduction (corm)
Fast growing
Interspecific hybridization
Major economic, environmental, and social impacts
(displacement of native vegetation, altered hydrology
and aesthetic qualities, agricultural crop)
123
Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges and guidelines
Table 1 continued
Model organism
(Family)
Model system category
Distribution
Key characteristics
Eucalyptus spp.
Understudied species
Native: Australia, Asia
Multiple invasive and native species
(Myrtaceae)
Genera/families with an
underrepresentation of
invasive species
Introduced: Africa,
Asia, EU, New
Zealand, NA, SA, EU
Global distribution
Known invasion history
Habitat generalists
Vegetative reproduction (stem cuttings)
Interspecific hybridization
Major economic and environmental impacts (loss of
native biodiversity, alteration of water and nutrient
regimes)
Intensively studied
species
Native: Africa, Asia,
Australia, EU
Intraspecific genetic and phenotypic variability
Purple loosestrife
(Lythraceae)
Specialized research
Introduced: New
Zealand, NA, SA
Known invasion history
Lythrum salicaria
Global distribution
Habitat generalist
Vegetative reproduction (stem cuttings)
Fast growing
Interspecific hybridization
Major economic and environmental impacts (harmful to
livestock and crop production, alters hydrology and
nutrient cycling, displaces native species)
Opuntia spp.
Prickly pear
(Cactaceae)
Genera/families with an
underrepresentation of
invasive species
Native: NA, SA
Pre-existing research network
Introduced: Africa,
Asia, EU, NA,
Oceania, SA
Multiple invasive and native species
Global distribution
Known invasion history
Habitat generalists
Vegetative reproduction (cladodes)
Interspecific hybridization
Major economic, environmental and social impacts
(harmful to livestock, native plant and arthropod
community, hinders human use of recreational areas,
cultivated crop)
Phragmites spp.
Common reed
(Poaceae)
Intensively studied
species
Native: Africa, Asia,
EU, NA, Oceania, SA
Pre-existing research networks
Specialized research
Genera/families
Introduced: NA,
Oceania
Intraspecific genetic and phenotypic variability
Multiple invasive and native species
Global distribution
Known invasion history
Habitat generalists
Vegetative reproduction (rhizomes or plant fragments)
Fast growing
Intraspecific and interspecific hybridization
Major economic and environmental impacts (alters
hydrology, ecosystem function and degrades habitat for
native species)
Rumex spp.
Dock/sorrell
(Polygonaceae)
Intensively studied
species
Native: Africa, Asia,
EU
Multiple invasive and native species
Genera/families with an
overrepresentation of
invasive species
Introduced: Africa,
Asia, NA, Oceania,
SA
Global distribution
Habitat generalists
Intraspecific genetic and phenotypic variability
123
J. G. Packer et al.
Table 1 continued
Model organism
(Family)
Model system category
Distribution
Key characteristics
Vegetative reproduction (roots)
Fast growing
Interspecific hybridization
Major economic impacts (decreases crop quality)
The model system categories are based on Kueffer et al. (2013), and distributions include Europe (EU), North America (NA), and
South America (SA). Genera/families with an under-representation of invasive species enable phylogenetically controlled contrasts
between native and invasive taxa, furthering understanding of mechanisms underlying invasion success. As pointed out by Kueffer
et al. (2013), groups of species with an underrepresentation of invasive species have attracted less research interest, but understanding
why these groups have not become invasive may help to advance invasion science significantly
Fig. 1 Structure of a global network on invasive species. The
core project (in green) involves all partners and addresses big
picture research questions at the global scale through: collection
of primary data; use of standardized protocols and metrics; and
commitment to long-term global data. Knowledge, and iterative
global research questions, are generated by the core project and
are exchanged (green arrows) with all partners through mutual
dialogue. Satellite projects (in blue) that are performed by
individual partners, or among partners, focus on questions that
are biogeographically restricted to certain partner contexts or
priorities (e.g., the competition of the focal taxa with a locally
present congener, or addressing the effect of Mediterranean
climates only). Satellite projects contribute (blue line) to the
overall knowledge base within the core project; these inform the
iteration of hypotheses and questions, some of which are
addressed by other satellite projects
secondary information to answer global questions
(e.g., GloNAF database of naturalized alien floras, van
Kleunen et al. 2015, and international invasion monitoring, Latombe et al. 2016) are therefore not included
in this definition. (3) Data collection is coordinated
using standardized protocols and metrics (e.g., Wilson
et al. 2014) that ensure comparability of data captured
at different locations, and rigorous data analysis. (4)
Global networks are enduring collaborations that
collect long-term data over an agreed timeframe
(e.g., 10 years) to address complex invasion dynamics.
Ongoing networks may also initiate shorter-term
123
Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges and guidelines
‘‘snapshot’’ satellite projects to address specific questions that relate to the main research direction of the
respective network (see Fig. 1) (e.g., Richardson et al.
2011; Woodford et al. 2016).
Why global networks are critical for invasion
science
Collaborative global networks are a powerful
approach with many benefits for invasion science
because they increase our collective capacity to: (1)
set global priorities for research agendas (such as the
strategic priorities we have outlined above); (2)
identify and assess the risks that emerge from global
trends; (3) unravel the mechanisms that mediate
genetic diversity at multiple scales of space and
time—the elucidation of such complexity cannot
practically be achieved through experimental manipulation at a single site (Fig. 1); (4) understand
biogeographic influences on the interactions between
alien plants and other biota, both native and introduced, across different trophic levels; (5) build our
collective capacity to predict future invasion dynamics; and (6) tap into the innovative approaches that
diverse, transdisciplinary networks can generate to
integrate new knowledge and evidence-based management of biological invasions.
Identifying and assessing the risk of emerging
trends
Networks provide unparalleled opportunities to identify and assess emerging trends in the distribution
patterns, ecology, genetics, and risk of the target taxa
and their close relatives. Invasion processes are
context-dependent and likely to evolve differently
across biogeographic regions and environmental settings (Richardson and Bond 1991; Cronin et al. 2015;
Packer et al. 2016). Some species or genotypes are
therefore likely to vary in response to different
environments (Meyerson et al. 2016a) suggesting that
early warning signals of invasiveness could come from
a single site rather than from multiple locations. For
this reason, coordinated experiments that span bioclimatic zones on multiple continents can also utilize
natural gradients to predict the influence of future
climatic conditions.
Any emerging risks can be assessed rapidly through
informal discussions (online and/or face-to-face) and
more formal risk-assessment processes developed by
the network or partner agencies. Active networks then
have the opportunity to use the wider associations of
members to notify the relevant policymakers, managers and broader community of the risk (nature and
magnitude) and to present a clear, consistent plan on
the appropriate priority actions, across multiple locations if necessary, to address the threat (e.g., Wilson
et al. 2014 for Australian acacias).
Facilitating biogeographic insights
into the genetics of invasion
A growing body of literature suggests that a biogeographical approach is fundamental to understanding
the current and potential dynamics of invasions in their
alien and native ranges (e.g., Hierro et al. 2005;
Colautti et al. 2009; Hejda 2013; Parker et al. 2013;
Cronin et al. 2015; Pyšek et al. 2015; van Kleunen
et al. 2015). The distribution of genetic variation
within taxa that have a broad geographic range
(spanning several biogeographic regions and continents) is changing due to increased dispersal opportunities across continents and post-invasion evolution
(e.g., Thompson et al. 2015 for Acacia saligna; see
also Eriksen et al. 2014). Studies from single sites or
regions cannot distinguish phenotypic variation in
traits related to invasiveness (genotype 9 environment interactions) from post-invasion adaptation and
evolution (Maron et al. 2004; Hierro et al. 2013).
There is increasing evidence that global change factors
(such as warming, drought, precipitation, and their
spatiotemporal variation) can alter macroevolutionary
patterns and, eventually, the genetic diversity and
structure of plant populations within just a decade
(Avolio et al. 2013; Ravenscroft et al. 2015). A lack of
information on intraspecific genetic diversity currently hampers our ability to understand potential
responses of species to these global changes (Pauls
et al. 2013; Meyerson et al. 2016b). It is not possible to
accurately predict such responses by individual invasive species from isolated studies of local populations
(which may not necessarily be representative of the
fitness of the species in total, or of the genus)
(Meyerson et al. 2010). The cultivation of a common set of genotypes representing intraspecific
123
J. G. Packer et al.
phylogeographic variation (e.g., the global genetic
structure of a species) in combination with field
studies of natural populations and common garden
studies can simultaneously identify lineages of high
fitness and the interaction of biogeographic factors
crucial for the success of these lineages at a specific
location. Global networks can thereby help to predict
and monitor invasion risk even before potentially
invasive genotypes are introduced to new areas
accidentally or on a larger scale intentionally.
Establishing collaborative common gardens on all
continents through a global network also provides an
opportunity to assess the role of environmentally
influenced genetic traits such as epigenetics (e.g.,
DNA methylation status; Schrey et al. 2013) and
phenotypic plasticity in the adaptation and spread of
potentially invasive plants. For instance, Guarino et al.
(2015) demonstrated that ramets of the same clone of
white poplar (Populus alba) had a different methylation status, and thus potentially different gene expression regulation and invasion risk, in relation to their
geographical provenance on the island of Sardinia.
Understanding biogeographic influences
on trophic interactions
Global networks that focus on a model system can
provide important insights into complex species interactions that limit or facilitate invasion processes. The
geographic structuring of alien plant distributions (e.g.,
higher rate of invasions in temperate than tropical or
polar regions; e.g., Lonsdale 1999; Fridley et al. 2007;
van Kleunen et al. 2015) may intensify trophic
interactions where alien species are more common
(Iannone et al. 2016) and cause large-scale geographic
shifts in species interactions and distributions (e.g., He
et al. 2013; Lord and Whitlatch 2015). Invasional
meltdowns may also be more common in regions
where introductions are more likely. Long-term coordinated experiments across multiple biomes may help
to identify anthropogenic drivers of change, including
human-assisted introductions, and the mechanisms
underpinning trophic interactions in response to these.
Herbivores and other natural enemies are widely
recognized as having a strong influence on the
establishment and subsequent spread of invasive plant
species (Keane and Crawley 2002; Rogers and Siemann 2004; Jeschke et al. 2012). Controlled common
garden experiments, one of the core approaches that
123
can be used by global networks, are often performed to
assess the importance of the Enemy Release Hypothesis at different localities (whether invasive species are
more resistant to natural enemies than native species)
and whether invasive species evolve in response to
their natural enemies in their introduced range (e.g.,
Agrawal et al. 2005; Joshi and Vrieling 2005; Rapo
et al. 2010). Coordinated research across multiple sites
has also been influential in advancing our understanding of how climate change variables, plant genetics
(genomic, ploidy and genotypic variation), epigenetics
(e.g., variation in DNA methylation status), and
geographic origins affect invasive/native plant-herbivore interactions (e.g., Lee and Kotanen 2015; Lu et al.
2015; Meyerson et al. 2016a).
Mutualisms play a key role in facilitating plant
invasions (Richardson et al. 2000), but the roles of
many symbionts in influencing progress at different
stages along the introduction-naturalization-invasion
continuum (sensu Richardson and Pyšek 2006) are
poorly understood. Contrasting the levels of performance of the same species in different biogeographic
regions is useful for understanding the roles of
mutualisms in invasions. For example, cross-region
comparisons have shed crucial light on the role of
nitrogen-fixing bacteria in facilitating invasions of
Australian Acacia species around the world and in
determining the extent to which introduced legumes
can form novel associations with resident bacteria
(Rodrı́guez-Echeverrı́a 2010; Ndlovu et al. 2013).
Predicting the future of invasion dynamics
Another incentive for globally coordinated research is
the increased capacity to develop reliable predictions
on invasive species responses to global change
(incorporating both anthropogenic and climatic drivers) and future dynamics of their spread in general
(Dukes and Mooney 1999; Guisan and Thuiller 2005).
Predictive modelling could incorporate data from the
network, including both data from natural invaded
environments and responses from standardized common gardens. Identifying whether some characteristics predispose a species or genotype to naturalize or
become invasive under projected future conditions
would be particularly useful for biological security
risk assessments and planning (Kolar and Lodge 2001;
Meyerson and Reaser 2003; Pyšek and Richardson
2007; van Kleunen et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2014, 2016;
Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges and guidelines
Suda et al. 2015; Tho et al. 2016). The responses of
plant functional traits across invasion stages differ
(Pyšek et al. 2009, 2015) and can be used as predictors
of response of an introduced species to multiple
interacting global change factors (e.g., stages in the
invasion process reached by the same species differ by
region; Richardson and Pyšek 2012). The network
approach offers the opportunity, by comparing the
conditions under which the same alien taxa occur as
casual, naturalized or invasive, to determine how the
environmental context in a particular biogeographical
setting interacts with functional traits in its invasion
success.
Generating innovative solutions through diverse
perspectives
A further benefit of global networks is their potential to
overcome one of the greatest challenges within invasion science; translating new knowledge into action
that will prevent or minimize biological invasions
(Hulme 2003; Lindenmayer et al. 2008). The spread of
invasive species globally is linked so closely to human
influence that developing lasting, effective solutions to
reverse this trend demands iterative and collaborative
input from applied and fundamental perspectives
(Wickson et al. 2006; see also Hulme 2006; Hui and
Richardson 2017). Kueffer (2010) argues that transdisciplinary perspectives are not only desirable, but
essential, because of the fundamentally socio-ecological aspects of plant invasions, including: (1) dynamic
patterns of propagule pressure along evolving trade
and transport routes; (2) the potential risk of novel
organisms created through synthetic biology; and (3)
variable human perceptions on the nature of invasions
and the mechanisms underpinning them.
Better systems are needed to identify and assess
these threats globally, to understand the underlying
mechanisms, to develop and prioritize response
actions, and communicate levels of threat and recommended interventions to policymakers and practitioners worldwide. The scale and breadth of these roles are
clearly beyond the scope of a single research group,
profession or discipline. Integrating theoretical and
applied approaches can help to ensure that research
questions address the most current and pertinent
aspects of these global priorities, and that the
management actions being implemented are the most
effective and efficient.
To bridge the gap, where it exists, research
scientists, policymakers and managers need to create
new ways of exchanging knowledge and designing
effective solutions together (Nassauer and Opdam
2008; Kueffer 2010; Ahern 2013; Richardson and
Lefroy 2016). Global networks that span multiple
approaches as well as continents have great potential
to foster innovation by drawing on complementary
expertise and experience on the focal issue or taxa
(Max-Neef 2005; Pohl 2005; Wickson et al. 2006).
The ‘‘virtual global acacia college’’ that was assembled in 2010–2011 to compile a collection of 20 papers
on the invasion ecology of Australian acacias
(Richardson et al. 2011) was a short-term demonstration of bringing together 104 researchers from 18
countries representing diverse subdisciplines in biology (e.g., genetics, invasion ecology, population
ecology, plant pathology, plant physiology) and
humanities (history, geography, philosophy) to
develop a comprehensive overview of the many issues
involved in acacia introductions and invasions.
Although this initiative does not strictly correspond
to our definition of a global network, it provides a
tangible example of the benefits of invasion scientists
working together across scientific disciplines.
Longer-term collaborations are needed to move
from identification of issues to the implementation of
effective solutions. The European Cooperation in
Science and Technology (COST; www.cost.eu)
Actions are bridging this gap with practical research
outputs, such as the illustrated guide to invasive taxa
and rapid assessments in the Mediterranean Sea
(Zenetos 2015). The MIREN group (www.
mountaininvasions.org) is well regarded for the
innovative solutions it generates through long-term
partnerships between scientists and practitioners
across multiple continents. South African MIREN
partners have contributed to developing an emerging
global threats system to identify potential risks (e.g.,
pompom weed; Campuloclinium macrocephalum)
and recommend management strategies to deal with
outbreaks in KwaZulu-Natal Province (McDougall
et al. 2011). More recently, MIREN has capitalized on
long-term relationships and trust between network
members to explore innovative ways to overcome the
ecological and economic burden of international travel
by reducing their face-to-face network meetings
(Kueffer 2016). As it becomes increasingly difficult to
access sufficient resources to cope with the growing
123
J. G. Packer et al.
Table 2 Examples of existing multilateral collaborations within invasion science (see also Box 2 in Lucy et al. 2016)
Network name
Focus and scale
Status
Outputs (Expected or achieved)
Key citations
COST Action FP1401—
A global network of
nurseries as an early
warning system against
alien tree pests
Consortium of over 40
countries. Europe, EU
neighboring Countries and
Extra EU Countries
2014–2018
Early warning system and
common protocols for alien
tree pests and diseases to be
established for countries
involved
Roques et al. (2015)
COST Action FA1203—
Sustainable
management of
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
in Europe
‘‘SMARTER’’
Consortium of over 40
countries. Europe, EU
neighboring Countries and
Extra EU Countries
2013–2017
Long-term management and
monitoring protocols,
development of innovative
management solutions
www.ragweed.eu
COST Action TD1209
European Information
System for Alien
Species ‘‘Alien
Challenge’’.
Invasive Alien Species in
Europe. Consortium of over
30 countries. Europe, EU
neighboring Countries and
Extra EU Countries
2012–2016
Knowledge gathering and
sharing through a network of
experts, support to a European
IAS information system,
implementation of EU 2020
Biodiversity Strategy targets
http://www.brc.ac.
uk/alien-challenge/
home
European Information and
Research Network on
Aquatic Invasive
Species (ERNAIS)
Online information system on
aquatic invasive species with
early warning functions and
decision support
2002–
current
International cooperation in
research, scientific
information exchange and
management of aquatic
invasive species in Europe
and worldwide.
http://www.reabic.
net/ERNAIS.aspx
Global Garlic Mustard
Field Survey (GGMFS)
16 countries in North America
and Europe. Standardized
field measurements of
performance traits
2008–
current
Replicating the GGMFS
approach with other invasive
species
Colautti et al.
(2014a)
Global Invader Impact
Network
Impact of invaders on
vegetation & soil
2013–
current
Experimental framework for a
standard methodology to
identify the ecological
impacts of invasive plants.
Barney et al. (2015)
Global Invasions
Research Coordination
Network
International network of
scientists supported by the
U.S. National Science
Foundation addressing the
ecological and evolutionary
causes of biological invasions
Ongoing
Coordination of both theoretical
and empirical research on
biological invasions around
the globe
http://invasionsrcn.
si.edu/
International Plant
Sentinel Network
(IPSN)
Plant pest and pathogens
Ongoing
Early warning, standardized
methodologies for monitoring
and surveying of damaging
plant pests and pathogens, risk
analysis
https://www.bgci.
org/plantconservation/ipsn/
INVASIVESNET
International association for
open knowledge and open
data on invasive alien species
and their management
2016–
current
Developing a sustainable
network of networks for
effective knowledge exchange
Lucy et al. 2016
Mountain Invasions
Research Network
(MIREN)
Effects of global change on
plant invasions and plant
biodiversity in mountainous
areas
2005–
current
Database on invasive plant
distribution in mountain
environments
Dietz et al. 2006;
McDougall et al.
(2011); www.
mountaininvasions.
org
Phragmites Network
(PhragNet)
Addressing global scale
questions in ecology and
biological invasions through a
2014–
current
Experimental framework and
standardized methodology
across common gardens to
Meyerson et al.
(2016b)
123
Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges and guidelines
Table 2 continued
Network name
Focus and scale
global network of common
gardens in Asia, Australia,
Europe, North America, and
South America
Status
Outputs (Expected or achieved)
identify the ecological
impacts of invasive plants
Key citations
Southern Hemisphere
Network on Conifer
Invasions
All aspects of conifer invasion
in the southern hemisphere
2007–
current
Promotes interaction and
collaboration between
researchers, managers and
planners
Richardson et al.
(2008); Simberloff
et al. (2010)
threat of invasive species globally, the imperative to
find creative and collaborative ways to address this
threat is also likely to grow.
Building on existing and previous collaborations:
challenges and lessons learned
Good examples of multilateral research collaborations
within invasion science exist already (McDougall
et al. 2011; Colautti et al. 2014a). Some of the most
extensive and important initiatives for both theoretical
and applied research are summarized in Table 2. Past
and current groups dealing with invasive species have
mainly focused on plants rather than other organisms
and have provided new tools for risk assessment and
management, standardized protocols for data collection and management, and an avenue for different
stakeholders to work together. Some of these global
collaborations address the impact of invasive plants on
a diverse range of taxa, such as the Global Invasions
Research Coordination Network (www.invasionsrcn.
si.edu), or The Global Invader Impact Network
(https://weedeco.ppws.vt.edu/giin; Barney et al.
2015). Existing networks, focused on collecting primary data, are complemented by more technologybased collaborations. The Global Invasive Species
Information Network (GISIN) was established to
overcome the limitations of traditional approaches in
responding to the growing demand for coordinated
gathering, storing and disseminating information on
introduced species (Ricciardi et al. 2000; Katsanevakis and Roy 2015). The GISIN has subsequently developed an online portal for standardized
data (Jarnevich et al. 2015, http://www.gisin.org).
Establishing a productive and sustainable global
research network presents many challenges, particularly in the areas of developing shared goals,
expectations, coordination, communication, and funding (Gaziulusoy et al. 2016). Below we summarize the
major stumbling blocks that can limit the long-term
success of networks, and outline strategies to avoid or
resolve these barriers (see Online Resource 1, Protocol
Guidelines in Supplementary Material, for more
information). Overcoming challenges requires shared
learning and authentic collaboration amongst network
members. One of the many potential strategies could
be facilitating ‘‘progress reports’’ between invasion
science networks to disseminate information about
data protocols, governance, and preliminary outcomes
from individual networks. This would enable data
trends to be more readily detected, research priorities
identified and promoted, and research approaches
shared amongst the scientists involved. Ecology and
Management of Alien Plant invasions (EMAPi;
Richardson et al. 2010; Daehler et al. 2016), for
example, has an international focus, holds conferences
held every two years and could provide an accessible
forum for invasion scientists to share and reflect on
updates from other relevant networks. Another potential forum is the European Neobiota initiative
(Kowarik and Starfinger 2009), which coordinates
biennial conferences and the open-access journal
NeoBiota which deals with biological invasions (Kühn
et al. 2011).
Sustainability through communication
and coordination
Successful global networks require active and continuing engagement of many collaborators (Petersen
et al. 2014). Promoting long-term partnerships through
collaborative, flexible governance can build trust and
accommodate the various motivational levels and
drivers over time of individuals members and the
institutions they represent (Online Resource 1; see
123
J. G. Packer et al.
also Richardson and Lefroy 2016). Reaching agreement through collaborative processes for potentially
divisive matters, such as data management (how to
collect, store, integrate, analyze and use data) and
authorship, is critical yet may be highly time-intensive
for large global networks in particular. Failing to
define and agree on a common research agenda and
approach, and to communicate the importance of this
to the scientific and broader community, are sure
ingredients for failure in network initiatives.
Navigating the variability in biosecurity
requirements across regions
Biosecurity legislation (international through to regional) and regulations of the donor (providing plant
material) and host (receiving plant material for
experiments and/or analysis) countries can strongly
influence the feasibility and timeframes of initiatives.
Hosting a garden with living, potentially weedy
species or genotypes demands strict adherence to
permit requirements, responsible husbandry practices,
and countries may have vastly different standards and
procedures to address biosecurity risks. Australia,
New Zealand, South Africa and North America are
renowned internationally for their strict biosecurity
standards. Within China there are a range of biosecurity measures stipulated, such as the isolation buffer
(natural or man-made to separate the garden from the
surrounding area) and documentation of garden management that is required in some provinces but not
necessarily in others. Networks that rely on sharing
plant material need to resolve these biosecurity issues
early in the planning process to allow adequate time
for receiving and propagating material.
Informing policy
Biological invasions can only be reduced worldwide
by engaging multinational support across all sectors of
society. Global initiatives can help to bring these
decision-making policies and processes into alignment
with each other by improving the dialogue on complex
scientific issues between researchers, policymakers,
stakeholder networks and the broader public (Richardson and Lefroy 2016). The COST Action TD1209
‘‘Alien Challenge’’ (www.brc.ac.uk/alien-challenge/
home) is one example of how a global collaboration
within invasion biology can inform policy and
123
stakeholders. This initiative is improving knowledge
gathering and sharing through a network of experts
informing the European Alien Species Information
System (EASIN), including assessing the pathways
and gateways of alien species introductions within
Europe (Katsanevakis and Roy 2015). The knowledge
gained from this initiative can be used to inform policy
decisions and develop shared formats for alien species
information in line with the EU 2020 Biodiversity
Strategy targets, Regulation EU no. 1143/2014. The
Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) is another
global community which combines scientific and
policy experts on invasive species under the auspices
of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the
International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN, see review by Pagad et al. 2015). While these
initiatives demonstrate some effective relationships
between science and policy at high levels in Europe
particularly, stronger science-policy partnerships are
needed in other biogeographic zones.
Funding global networks
Active, productive networks need to be resourced over
at least several years. While some activities can occur
with in-kind resources or minimal funding (e.g.,
developing shared goals, establishing a core collection
of plant material, and communicating through electronic media), others demand substantial investment of
time and funding (e.g., meeting face-to-face, establishing experimental infrastructure, and field surveys).
Only a small proportion of funding, if any, is likely to
come from grants allocated to the whole network.
Multilateral funding could include regional sources
such as the European Union’s Horizon 2020 and COST
Actions which support collaborations with non-European Union research groups. More realistically, each
network location will need to source its own funding,
for example by identifying the synergies between
network activities, ongoing or related research projects, and capitalizing on existing research networks
and international funding opportunities. Several
national or regional centers or institutes that focus on
invasion science are now well established (e.g., the
Laboratorio de Invasiones Biológicas in Chile—http://
www.lib.udec.cl/home.html; Department of Invasion
Ecology of the Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Science—http://www.ibot.cas.cz/invasions; or
the Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch
Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges and guidelines
University in South Africa—http://academic.sun.ac.
za/cib/; van Wilgen et al. 2014). Such centers already
function as hubs in global networks in invasion science, but there is scope for more focused global collaborations such as outlined in this paper.
Conclusions
The complexity and scale (spatial and temporal) of the
most important biological invasion questions is well
beyond the scope of individual biogeographic regions,
disciplines, professions or local research groups.
Despite the urgent need, only a few large-scale collaborations have been established within invasion science,
and none have focused on these fundamental global
(e.g., how does biogeography influence ecosystem
resistance and resilience against invasion?) or highimpact applied (e.g., rapid responses to new threats)
questions. Global Networks for Invasion Science are a
powerful approach to address fundamental questions
and transform this knowledge into appropriate policy
and management recommendations. We encourage
researchers, policymakers and practitioners to build
global networks and generate the innovative solutions to
minimize biological invasions that can only come from
such a collaborative and global approach.
Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the
generosity of the University of Sassari, Italy, in hosting the
PhragNet 2016 planning meetings and creating the space that
facilitated this manuscript. DMR and SC acknowledge support
from the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
and the Working for Water Programme through their
collaborative research project on ‘Integrated management of
invasive alien species in South Africa’ and the National
Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant 85417 to DMR).
SC’s work was supported by the South African National
Department of Environment Affairs through its funding of the
South African National Biodiversity Institute Invasive Species
Programme. HB, CL and FE were supported by the Danish
Council for Independent Research | Natural Sciences (Project
DFF-4002-00333). JTC, WJA and GPB were supported by NSF
grant DEB 1050084 to JTC. LAM was supported by NSF DEB
1049914 to LAM and by the University of Rhode Island,
College of Environment and Life Sciences. PP, JC, WYG and
HS were supported by long-term research development project
RVO 67985939 (The Czech Academy of Sciences), and Project
No. 14-15414S (Czech Science Foundation). PP acknowledges
support by Praemium Academiae award from The Czech
Academy of Sciences. JGP warmly thanks the Institute of
Integrative Biology, ETH Zürich for welcoming hospitality and
the Environment Institute and Faculty of Sciences, The
University of Adelaide for support from Travel Grant 13116630.
References
Agrawal AA, Kotanen PM, Mitchell CE, Power AG, Godsoe W,
Klironomos J (2005) Enemy release? An experiment with
congeneric plant pairs and diverse above- and belowground
enemies. Ecology 86:2979–2989. doi:10.1890/05-0219
Ahern J (2013) Urban landscape sustainability and resilience:
the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with
urban planning and design. Landscape Ecol 28:1203–1212.
doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z
Avolio ML, Beaulieu JM, Smith MD (2013) Genetic diversity of
a dominant C-4 grass is altered with increased precipitation
variability. Oecologia 171:571–581. doi:10.1007/s00442012-2427-4
Barney JN, Tekiela DR, Barrios-Garcia MN, Dimarco RD,
Hufbauer RA, Leipzig-Scott P, Nuñez MA, Pauchard A,
Pyšek P, Vı́tková M, Maxwell BD (2015) Global Invader
Impact Network (GIIN): toward standardized evaluation of
the ecological impacts of invasive plants. Ecol Evol
5:2878–2889. doi:10.1002/ece3.1551
Catford JA, Jansson R, Nilsson C (2009) Reducing redundancy
in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single
theoretical framework. Divers Distrib 15:22–40
Colautti RI, Maron JL, Barrett SCH (2009) Common garden
comparisons of native and introduced plant populations:
latitudinal clines can obscure evolutionary inferences. Evol
Appl 2:187–199. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00053.x
Colautti RI, Franks SJ, Hufbauer RA, Kotanen P, Torchin M,
Byers JE, Pyšek P, Bossdorf O (2014a) The Global Garlic
Mustard Field Survey (GGMFS): challenges and opportunities of a unique, large-scale collaboration for invasion
biology. NeoBiota 21:29–47. doi:10.3897/neobiota.21.5242
Colautti RI, Parker JD, Cadotte MW, Pyšek P, Brown CS, Sax
DF, Richardson DM (2014b) Quantifying the invasiveness
of species. NeoBiota 21:7–27. doi:10.3897/neobiota.21.
5310
Cronin JT, Bhattarai GP, Allen WJ, Meyerson LA (2015) Biogeography of a plant invasion: plant–herbivore interactions. Ecology 96:1115–1127. doi:10.1890/14-1091.1
Daehler CD, van Kleunen M, Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2016)
EMAPi 2015: highlighting links between science and
management of alien plant invasions. NeoBiota 30:1–3.
doi:10.3897/neobiota.30.9594
Dietz H, Kueffer C, Parks CG (2006) MIREN: a new research
network concerned with plant invasion into mountain
areas. Mount Res Develop 26:80–81. doi:10.1659/02764741(2006)026[0080:MANRNC]2.0.CO;2
Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ,
Rejmánek M, Williamson M (eds) (1989) Biological
invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester
Dukes JS, Mooney HA (1999) Does global change increase the
success of biological invaders? Trends Ecol Evol
14:135–139. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01554-7
Eriksen RL, Hierro JL, Eren Ö, Andonian K, Török K, Becerra
PI, Montesinos D, Khetsuriani L, Diaconu A, Kesseli R
(2014) Dispersal pathways and genetic differentiation
among worldwide populations of the invasive weed Centaurea solstitialis L. (Asteraceae). PLoS ONE 9:e114786
Fraser LH, Henry HAL, Carlyle CN, White SR, Beierkuhnlein
C, Cahill JF Jr, Casper BB, Cleland E, Collins SL, Dukes
123
J. G. Packer et al.
JS, Knapp AK, Lind E, Long R, Luo Y, Reich PB, Smith
MD, Sternberg M, Turkington R (2013) Coordinated distributed experiments: an emerging tool for testing global
hypotheses in ecology and environmental science. Front
Ecol Environ 11:147–155. doi:10.1890/110279
Fridley JD, Stachowicz JJ, Naeem S, Sax DF, Seabloom EW,
Smith MD, Stohlgren TJ, Tilman D, Von Holle B (2007)
The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in
species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17. doi:10.1890/00129658(2007)88[3:TIPRPA]2.0.CO;2
Gaziulusoy AI, Ryan C, McGrail S, Chandler P, Twomey P
(2016) Identifying and addressing challenges faced by
transdisciplinary research teams in climate change
research. J Clean Prod 123:55–64. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2015.08.049
Guarino F, Cicatelli A, Brundu G, Heinze B, Castiglione S
(2015) Epigenetic diversity of clonal white poplar
(Populus alba L.) populations: could methylation support the success of vegetative reproduction strategy?
PLoS ONE 10(7):e0131480. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
0131480
Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution:
offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett
8:993–1009. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x
Guo WY, Lambertini C, Nguyen LX, Li XZ, Brix H (2014)
Preadaptation and post-introduction evolution facilitate the
invasion of Phragmites australis in North America. Ecol
Evol 4:4567–4577. doi:10.1002/ece3.1286
Guo WY, Lambertini C, Guo X, Li XZ, Eller F, Brix H (2016)
Phenotypic traits of the Mediterranean Phragmites australis M1 lineage: differences between the native and
introduced ranges. Biol Invasions 18:2551. doi:10.1007/
s10530-016-1236-9
He Q, Bertness MD, Altieri AH (2013) Global shifts towards
positive species interactions with increasing environmental
stress. Ecol Lett 16:695–706
Hejda M (2013) Do species differ in their ability to coexist with
the dominant alien Lupinus polyphyllus? A comparison
between two distinct invaded ranges and a native range.
NeoBiota 17:39–55
Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical
approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying
exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93:5–15
Hierro JL, Eren Ö, Villarreal D, Chiuffo MC (2013) Non-native
conditions favor non-native populations of invasive plant:
demographic consequences of seed size variation? Oikos
122:583–590
Hui C, Richardson DM (2017) Invasion dynamics. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
Hulme PE (2003) Biological invasions: winning the science
battles but losing the conservation war? Oryx 37:178–193
Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the
management of biological invasions. J Appl Ecol
43:835–847
Iannone BV, Potter KM, Guo Q, Liebhold AM, Pijanowski BC,
Oswalt CM, Fei S (2016) Biological invasion hotspots: a
trait-based perspective reveals new sub-continental patterns. Ecography (in press, doi: 10.1111/ecog.01973)
Jarnevich CS, Simpson A, Graham JJ, Newman GJ, Bargeron
CT (2015) Running a network on a shoestring: the Global
123
Invasive Species Information Network. Manage Biol
Invasions 6:137–146. doi:10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.04
Jeschke JM, Aparicio LG, Haider S, Heger T, Lortie CJ, Pyšek
P, Strayer DL (2012) Support for major hypotheses in
invasion biology is uneven and declining. NeoBiota
14:1–20. doi:10.3897/neobiota.14.3435
Joshi J, Vrieling K (2005) The enemy release and EICA
hypothesis revisited: incorporating the fundamental difference between specialist and generalist herbivores. Ecol
Lett 8:704–714
Katsanevakis S, Roy HE (2015) Alien species related information systems and information management. Manage Biol
Invasions 6:115–117. doi:10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.01
Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the
enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170
Kolar CS, Lodge TS (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204
Kowarik I, Starfinger U (2009) Neobiota: a European approach.
NeoBiota 8:21–28
Kueffer C (2010) Transdisciplinary research is needed to predict
plant invasions in an era of global change. Trends Ecol
Evol 25:619–620
Kueffer C (2016) A year without flying: the importance of virtual networking, The Mountain Blogs, Mountain Research
Institute. Posted 22 January 2016. http://www.blogs-mri.
org/a-year-without-flying/. Accessed 31 Aug 2016
Kueffer C, Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2013) Integrative invasion
science: model systems, multi-site studies, focused metaanalysis, and invasion syndromes. New Phytol
200:615–633. doi:10.1111/nph.12415
Kühn I, Kowarik I, Kollmann J, Starfinger U, Bacher S,
Blackburn TM, Bustamante RO, Celesti-Grapow L, Chytrý
M, Colautti RI, Essl F, Foxcroft LC, Garcı́a-Berthou E,
Gollasch S, Hierro J, Hufbauer RA, Hulme PE, Jarošı́k V,
Jeschke JM, Karrer G, Mack RN, Molofsky J, Murray BR,
Nentwig W, Osborne B, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Rejmánek
M, Roques A, Shaw R, Sol D, van Kleunen M, Vilà M, von
der Lippe M, Wolfe LM, Penev L (2011) Open minded and
open access: introducing NeoBiota, a new peer-reviewed
journal of biological invasions. NeoBiota 9:1–12. doi:10.
3897/neobiota.9.1835
Latombe G, Pyšek P, Jeschke JM, Blackburn TM, Bacher S,
Capinha C, Costello MJ, Fernández M, Gregory RD,
Hobern D, Hui C, Jetz W, Kumschick S, McGrannachan C,
Pergl J, Roy HE, Scalera R, Squires ZE, Wilson JRU,
Winter M, Genovesi P, McGeoch MA (2016) A vision for
global monitoring of biological invasions. Biol Cons.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.013
Lee Y, Kotanen PM (2015) Differences in herbivore damage
and performance among Arctium minus (burdock) genotypes sampled from a geographic gradient: a common
garden experiment. Biol Invasions 17:397–408
Lindenmayer D, Hobbs RJ, Montague-Drake R, Alexandra J,
Bennett A, Burgman M, Cale P, Calhoun A, Cramer V,
Cullen P, Driscoll D, Fahrig L, Fischer J, Franklin J, Haila
Y, Hunter M, Gibbons P, Lake S, Luck G, MacGregor C,
McIntyre S, Mac Nally R, Manning A, Miller J, Mooney H,
Noss R, Possingham HP, Saunders D, Schmiegelow F,
Scott M, Simberloff D, Sisk T, Tabor G, Walker B, Wiens
J, Woinarski J, Zavaleta E (2008) A checklist for ecological
Global networks for invasion science: benefits, challenges and guidelines
management of landscapes for conservation. Ecol Lett
11:78–91
Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the
concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536
Lopezaraiza-Mikel ME, Hayes RB, Whalley MR, Memmott J
(2007) The impact of an alien plant on a native plantpollinator network: an experimental approach. Ecol Lett
10:539–550
Lord J, Whitlatch R (2015) Predicting competitive shifts and
responses to climate change based on latitudinal distributions of species assemblages. Ecology 96:1264–1274
Lu XM, Siemann E, He MY, Wei H, Shao X, Ding J (2015)
Climate warming increases biological control agent impact
on a non-target species. Ecol Lett 18:48–56
Lucy FE, Roy H, Simpson A, Carlton JT, Hanson JM, Magellan
K, Campbell ML, Costello MJ, Pagad S, Hewitt CL,
McDonald J, Cassey P, Thomaz SM, Katsanevakis S,
Zenetos A, Tricarico E, Boggero E, Groom QJ, Adriaens T,
Vanderhoeven S, Torchin M, Hufbauer R, Fuller P, Carman MR, Conn DB, Vitule JRS, Canning-Clode J, Galil
BS, Ojaveer H, Bailey SA, Therriault TW, Claudi R, Gazda
A, Dick JTA, Caffrey J, Witt A, Kenis M, Lehtiniemi M,
Helmisaari H, Panov VE (2016) INVASIVESNET towards
an international association for open knowledge on invasive alien species. Manage Biol Invasions 7:131–139
Maron J, Vilà M, Bommarco R, Elmendorf S, Beardsley P
(2004) Rapid evolution of an invasive plant. Ecol Monog
2:261-280. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4539056
Max-Neef MA (2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol
Econ 53:5–16
McDougall K, Alexander J, Haider S, Pauchard A, Walsh N,
Kueffer C (2011) Alien flora of mountains: global comparisons for the development of local preventive measures
against plant invasions. Divers Distrib 17:103–111
Meyerson LA, Mooney HA (2007) Invasive alien species in an
era of globalization. Front Ecol Environ 5:199–208
Meyerson LA, Reaser JK (2003) Biosecurity, bioterrorism, and
invasive alien species. Front Ecol Environ 1:307–314
Meyerson LA, Viola D, Brown R (2010) Hybridization of
invasive Phragmites australis with a native subspecies in
North America. Biol Invasions 12:103–111
Meyerson LA, Cronin JT, Bhattarai GP, Brix H, Lambertini C,
Lučanová M, Rinehart S, Suda J, Pyšek P (2016a) Do
ploidy level and nuclear genome size and latitude of origin
modify the expression of Phragmites australis traits and
interaction with herbivores? Biol Invasions 2016:1–19.
doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1200-8
Meyerson LA, Cronin JT, Pyšek P (2016b) Phragmites australis
as a model organism for studying plant invasions. Biol
Invasions 2016:1–11. doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1132-3
Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JA, Neville LE, Schei PJ,
Waage JK (eds) (2005) Invasive alien species: a new
synthesis. Island Press, Washington
Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the
landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol 23:633–644
Ndlovu J, Richardson DM, Wilson JRU, Le Roux JJ (2013) Coinvasion of South African ecosystems by an Australian
legume and its rhizobial symbionts. J Biogeogr
40:1240–1251
Packer JG, Delean S, Kueffer C, Prider J, Abley K, Facelli JM,
Carthew SM (2016) Native faunal communities depend on
habitat from non-native plants in novel but not in natural
ecosystems. Biodiv Conserv 25:503–523
Pagad S, Genovesi P, Carnevali L, Scalera R, Clout M (2015)
IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group: invasive
alien species information management supporting practitioners, policy makers and decision takers. Manage Biol
Invasions 6:127–135
Parker JD, Torchin ME, Hufbauer RA, Lemoine NP, Alba C,
Blumenthal DM, Bossdorf O, Byers JE, Dunn AM,
Heckman RW, Hejda M, Jarošı́k V, Kanarek AR, Martin
LB, Perkins SE, Pyšek P, Schierenbeck K, Schlöder C,
van Klinken R, Vaughn KJ, Williams W, Wolfe LM
(2013) Do invasive species perform better in their new
ranges? Ecology 94:985–994. doi:10.1890/12-1810.1
Pauls SU, Nowak C, Bálint M, Pfenninger M (2013) The impact
of global climate change on genetic diversity within populations and species. Mol Ecol 22:925–946
Petersen AM, Pavlidis I, Semendeferi I (2014) A quantitative
perspective on ethics in large team science. Sci Engin
Ethics 20:923–945. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9562-8
Pohl C (2005) Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental
research. Futures 37:1159–1178
Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2007) Traits associated with invasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? In: Nentwig W
(ed) Biological invasions, Ecological studies 193.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 97–125
Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Jarošı́k V (2006) Who cites who in the
invasion zoo: insights from an analysis of the most highly
cited papers in invasion ecology. Preslia 78:437–468
Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Pergl J, Jarošı́k V, Sixtová Z, Weber E
(2008) Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion
ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:237–244. doi:10.1016/j.tree.
2008.02.002
Pyšek P, Jarošı́k V, Pergl J, Randall R, Chytrý M, Kühn I, Tichý
L, Danihelka J, Chrtek jun J, Sádlo J (2009) The global
invasion success of Central European plants is related to
distribution characteristics in their native range and species
traits. Divers Distrib 15(5):891–903
Pyšek P, Jarošı́k V, Hulme PE, Kühn I, Wild J, Arianoutsou M,
Bacher S, Chiron F, Didžiulis V, Essl F, Genovesi P,
Gherardi F, Hejda M, Kark S, Lambdon PW, DesprezLoustau A-M, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Poboljšaj K, Rabitsch
W, Roques A, Roy DB, Shirley S, Solarz W, Vilà M,
Winter M (2010) Disentangling the role of environmental
and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:12157–12162. doi:10.
1073/pnas.1002314107
Pyšek P, Manceur AM, Alba C, McGregor KF, Pergl J, Štajerová K, Chytrý M, Danihelka J, Kartesz J, Klimešová J,
Lučanová M, Moravcová L, Nishino M, Sádlo J, Suda J,
Tichý L, Kühn I (2015) Naturalization of central European
plants in North America: species traits, habitats, propagule
pressure, residence time. Ecology 96:762–774. doi:10.
1890/14-1005.1
Rapo C, Muller-Scharer H, Vrieling K, Schaffner U (2010) Is
there rapid evolutionary response in introduced populations of tansy ragwort, Jacobaea vulgaris, when exposed to
biological control? Evol Ecol 24:1081–1099
Ravenscroft CH, Whitlock R, Fridley JD (2015) Rapid genetic
divergence in response to 15 years of simulated climate
change. Glob Change Biol 21:4165–4176
123
J. G. Packer et al.
Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (2013) Trees and shrubs as
invasive alien species—2013 update of the global database.
Diversity Distrib 19:1093–1094
Ricciardi A, Steiner WWM, Mack RN, Simberloff D (2000)
Toward a global information system for invasive species.
Bioscience
50:239–244.
doi:10.1641/00063568(2000)050[0239:TAGISF]2.3.CO;2
Richardson DM (2011) Invasion science: the roads travelled and
the roads ahead. In: Richardson DM (ed) Fifty years of
invasion ecology. The legacy of Charles Elton. WileyBlackwell, Oxford, pp 397–407. doi: 10.1002/
9781444329988.ch29
Richardson DM, Bond WJ (1991) Determinants of plant distribution: evidence from pine invasions. Am Nat
137:639–668
Richardson BJ, Lefroy T (2016) Restoration dialogues:
improving the governance of ecological restoration. Restor
Ecol 24:668–673. doi:10.1111/rec.12391
Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the
concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Progr Phys Geogr 30:409–431
Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2012) Naturalization of introduced
plants: ecological drivers of biogeographic patterns. New
Phytol 196:383–396
Richardson DM, Allsopp N, D’Antonio CM, Milton SJ,
Rejmánek M (2000) Plant invasions: the role of mutualisms. Biol Rev 75:65–93
Richardson DM, Rouget M, Rejmánek M (2004) Using natural
experiments in the study of alien tree invasions: opportunities and limitations. In: Gordon MS, Bartol SM (eds)
Experimental approaches to conservation biology.
University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 180–201
Richardson DM, van Wilgen BW, Nunez MA (2008) Alien
conifer invasions in South America: short fuse burning?
Biol Invasions 10:573–577
Richardson DM, Daehler CC, Leishman MR, Pauchard A,
Pyšek P (2010) Plant invasions: theoretical and practical
challenges. Biol Invasions 12:3907–3911
Richardson DM, Carruthers J, Hui C, Impson FAC, Miller JT,
Robertson MP, Rouget M, Le Roux JJ, Wilson JRU (2011)
Human-mediated introductions of Australian acacias: a
global experiment in biogeography. Diversity Distrib
17:771–787
Rodrı́guez-Echeverrı́a S (2010) Rhizobial hitchhikers from
Down Under: invasional meltdown in a plant-bacteria
mutualism? J Biogeogr 37:1611–1622
Rogers WE, Siemann E (2004) Invasive ecotypes tolerate herbivory more effectively than native ecotypes of the Chinese
tallow tree Sapium sebiferum. J Appl Ecol 41:561–570
Roques A, Fan J-T, Courtial B, Zhang Y-Z, Yart A, AugerRozenberg M-A, Denux O, Kenis M, Baker R, Sun J-H
(2015) Planting sentinel European trees in Eastern Asia as a
novel method to identify potential insect pest invaders.
PLoS ONE 10:e0120864
Schrey AW, Alvarez M, Foust CM, Kilvitis HJ, Lee JD, Liebl
LB, Martin CL, Richards M, Robertson AW (2013) Ecological epigenetics: beyond MS-AFLP. Integr Comp Biol
53(2):340–350. doi:10.1093/icb/ict012
123
Simberloff D, Nuñez M, Ledgard NJ, Pauchard A, Richardson
DM, Sarasola M, van Wilgen BW, Zalba SM, Zenni RD,
Bustamante R, Peña E, Ziller SR (2010) Spread and impact
of introduced conifers in South America: lessons from
other southern hemisphere regions. Austral Ecol
35:489–504. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02058.x
Strayer DL (2012) Eight questions about invasions and
ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 15:1199–1210. doi:10.
1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01817.x
Suda J, Meyerson LA, Leitch I, Pyšek P (2015) The hidden side
of plant invasions: the role of genome size. New Phytol
205:994–1007. doi:10.1111/nph.13107
Tho BT, Sorrell BK, Lambertini C, Eller F, Brix H (2016)
Phragmites australis: how do genotypes of different phylogeographic origin differ from their invasive genotypes in
growth, nitrogen allocation and gas exchange? Biol Invasions 18:2563–2576. doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1158-6
Thompson GD, Bellstedt DU, Richardson DM, Wilson JRU, Le
Roux JJ (2015) A tree well travelled: global genetic
structure of the invasive tree Acacia saligna. J Biogeogr
42:305–314. doi:10.1111/jbi.12436
van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of
trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant
species. Ecol Lett 13:235–245
van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Essl F, Pergl J, Winter M, Weber E,
Kreft H, Weigelt P, Kartesz J, Nishino M, Antonova LA,
Barcelona JF, Cabezas FJ, Cárdenas D, Cárdenas-Toro J,
Castaño N, Chacón E, Chatelain C, Ebel AL, Figueiredo E,
Fuentes N, Groom QJ, Henderson L, Inderjit Kupriyanov
A, Masciadri S, Meerman J, Morozova O, Moser D,
Nickrent DL, Patzelt A, Pelser PB, Baptiste MP, Poopath
M, Schulze M, Seebens H, Shu W, Thomas J, Velayos M,
Wieringa JJ, Pyšek P (2015) Global exchange and accumulation of non-native plants. Nature 525:100–103.
doi:10.1038/nature14910
van Wilgen BW, Davies SJ, Richardson DM (2014) Invasion
science for society: a decade of contributions from the
Centre for Invasion Biology. S Afr J Sci. doi:10.1590/sajs.
2014/a0074
Walther GR, Gritti ES, Berger S, Hickler T, Tang ZY, Sykes MT
(2007) Palms tracking climate change. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:801–809
Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW (2006) Transdisciplinary
research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures
38:1046–1059. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011
Wilson JRU, Caplat P, Dickie IA, Hui C, Maxwell BD, Nuñez
MA, Pauchard A, Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Robertson MP, Spear D, Webber BL, van Wilgen BW, Zenni RD
(2014) A standardized set of metrics to assess and monitor
tree invasions. Biol Invasions 16:535–551. doi:10.1007/
s10530-013-0605-x
Woodford DJ, Richardson DM, MacIsaac HJ, Mandrak NE, van
Wilgen BW, Wilson JRU, Weyl OLF (2016) Confronting
the wicked problem of managing biological invasions.
Neobiota 31:63–86
Zenetos A. (ed.), 2015. Illustrated Guide of Marine Alien species in the Mediterranean for Students and Citizen Scientists. COST1209 Action: Alien Challenge, 22 pp